Share this

Fallout and recriminations over the Shirley Sherrod firing/rehiring(?) episode continue. Have we finally reached a tipping point in gotcha journalism, where some innocent bystander inevitably gets caught in the crossfire? Will elected officials, the media and the chattering classes generally step back from the ledge? Will members of Congress and the White House be less knee-jerk in reacting to FOX and other cable news outlets? Will they wait that extra few hours to get the facts?

And is the Sherrod episode a "teachable moment," as White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Wednesday, which will change anybody's behavior, left or right? Also, does this episode reflect the power of even a cheap shot? Is there just too much incentive to do it – and too much infrastructure like cable, web, etc. – to give it up?

President Barack Obama has spoken with Shirley Sherrod, a black Department of Agriculture employee who was forced out after a videotape surfaced of her making what initially appeared to be racially discriminatory remarks to an NAACP audience. "The President expressed to Ms. Sherrod his regret about the events of the last several days," according to a statement from the White House. Obama, who called her at 12:35 p.m., emphasized that Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack was sincere in his apology yesterday, and in his work to rid USDA of discrimination. CNN reported that Sherrod was "pleased" by the call, but said she and Obama did not discuss whether the White House was involved in Vilsack’s decision to seek her resignation.

It's just an example of how a little bit of information can be a dangerous thing. It should be a lesson to all of us, right, left or whatever, a lesson to all of us that it's important to see the context of a remark because this never should have developed into the situation that it is.

I'm so pleased that Secretary Vilsack has given a sincere apology. He too acted on insufficient information. And hopefully the situation will be resolved in a way that respects her dignity.

I just think the whole episode has been unfortunate, and I think this lady has been put through hell and back. And I hope that she receives the appropriate apologies and has an opportunity to return to her job.

Of utmost, this is a learning experience for all involved. And it should be a wake-up call for everybody to step back and take a deep breath and understand that racism has no place -- has no place -- in our society and that hopefully this entire episode will serve to help us finally and collectively as a nation, move ahead.

There are forces out there who don't want to see us move ahead, and they know the unfortunate pangs of colorship that unfortunately still resonate within the fabric and the culture of our country and that we have yet to excise it out. That's why I hope we can use this event collectively to learn from it.

You look at how the tape was diced and sliced. There was a purposefulness of the force intent on using this weak link of American society on race to strike a blow. So the great thing about it is, we're learning. We've backed off from this. We've stopped this rush to judge. We've stopped this knee-jerk reaction over race. We've got to move in.

I would just hope that people do step back before they make rash decisions like the secretary did – that we take a little time to think things through and find out the facts … We just need to think things through before we talk or act … They just need to think it through before they act or say things – they obviously didn’t … If they’d learned the facts and thought it through, they wouldn’t have the problem.

Well, there are a lot of people who screwed up, but the only folks who were eager to peddle that story was Fox News and they showed themselves to be piggish character assassins that you'd come to expect. I mean, Fox News is not a real news operation. It's an ideological hatchet machine and they should be ashamed for carrying that kind of crap without checking it out. But they're not the only ones who screwed it up, but they're the ones who did it with the most pleasure.

I suspect that … the Sherrod situation has caused a lot of embarrassment: for Fox News, for the administration, for the NAACP, and for so many other people that just never took that deep breath to find out, "What if we just jump on [a story] without even trying to find the facts because we need fast news or because we want to be in the headlines … we could possibly, if we were wrong, be destroying someone’s life?"

The story [Sherrod] was telling was not a political story; it was a very, very emotional story where she was pouring out how she changed her attitudes. It was a lesson that she was teaching us, and she got fired! And I can’t imagine what she went through, having worked all her life helping people then saying, “That’s not true, that’s not me, I wouldn’t do it.” And it’s irreparable harm.

Newspapers, including POLITICO, have found it very easy to pick up allegations about me, and for two years have spread them from one paper to the other – and what do I do? I too was asked to be fired, and I sent it to the Ethics Committee with full knowledge that what damage has been done can never be repaired. But I knew that she, as I, knew that at the end of the day truth would prevail.

In her case, maybe she was lucky because it took two days. For me, it’s taken two years.

Whether you’re talking about tea baggers or conservatives, some among themselves are saying – including O’Reilly – “Did I have to do it that way? Did I run too fast with this story? How much damage have I caused?” And, of course, having an African-American president means that everyone [looks to] him, if it’s political, if it’s national, if it’s black. You know: “What would Obama do?”

I think what happened here is, [the administration] got played by the media, particularly O’Reilly; they got played, and then they reacted to it. And then they had to be contrite.

We’ve got to reach a point where we pause. If race is that prickly of an issue, then let’s have that dialogue that the attorney general asked for so long ago and got criticized for wanting to have. The issue of immigration begs for that dialogue. And so I hope we’re not at that point that we’re so prickly on the issue of race that we don’t pause, check our facts, and not jump to conclusions.

I think there’s people playing a part in this dialogue that want to exploit the issue. They want to keep it ugly, they want to keep it mean, they want to keep it divisive. We’re never going to turn that element around, so let’s work on the element that’s waiting to hear and waiting to move.

I think the most important lesson we've [learned] from this important problem is that everyone is entitled to due process. I think the opportunity to tell their side of the story and defend themselves before we rush to judgment on what they said and what it means for their employment to the federal government and why we're in this situation is largely broken by the enormous stress that people place on elected officials and appointed officials because of the power to get a story out.

Oftentimes, we know now, we should be smarter than this because of the common problems from things posted on the Internet. People who are blogging -- who don't have the same professional training that journalists may have had in the past -- they're rushing to get a story out or rushing to make a political statement instead of telling an objective, active story.

The lesson we should all learn from, this whether it's the White House, the secretary of Agriculture's office, or members of Congress, is when you are being confronted with a story like this, you need to let the person who did the cues have an opportunity if they chose to tell their side of the story. If that had happened, you wouldn't have seen people rushing to judgment and condemning the person before the whole story got out.

The good thing about the Obama presidency is that his status as a person of color ... gives him a platform to have a meaningful conversation, as he did after the Jeremiah Wright controversy, about the role of race in America and why we need to be more honest and open with each other about our attitudes and beliefs. So that's why even though these things are painful for us to acknowledge, painful to talk about, it gives us another opportunity to try have a meaningful dialogue.

Certain journalists who were involved in this will probably be a little bit more circumspect in the future, as always tends to be the case when somebody gets burned. But sooner or later it will happen again. It goes with the territory, and if anything, the Internet has made the tendency worse.

But there are tradeoffs and advantages, too. Look how quickly it was corrected. The NAACP had the full video and they were able to put it out there quickly when it got out of hand, whereas in the past, it might have taken weeks of continued pressure.

The tendency to run with things has intensified, but the speed with which things are corrected has intensified too.

Frank SesnoDirector, School of Media and Public Affairs, George Washington University :

(Interview with POLITICO's Keach Hagey)

I actually think the media did learn. We incrementally learn through experience, and we’re in this new online world now where video and messages can be so hijacked and distorted. The media, both the online and traditional media, failed to say, “Is there a context here? Is there more than meets the eye?” The answer was yes, and because everything moves at the speed of sound, the noise preceded the information.

What was actually astonishing was how quickly people figured it out, apologies were issued, and explanations were given. And that’s the corrective side of this. The actual bad information didn’t linger for very long.

The echo chamber has gotten a lot bigger, and it’s even less predictable and even less disciplined than it was just a few short years ago. I think that the phenomenal fall and rise of Shirley Sherrod is a case study of the warp speed of this sort of online digital echo chamber that we now live in.

As for the media, I don’t really see that this is going to make them change. What happens is a video comes up, and the media report on the fact that the video is up, and then report on the fact that somebody resigned. A lot of the media were covering this as it was unfolding. I don’t think the fact that it unfolded in the way it did is going to make them gun-shy about it the next time. Their business is breaking news. You put news out as it is available. You don’t wait to contextualize it.

I think it is. I wish it were longer so that we can realize how sensitive race is, and how misunderstandings and getting information in pieces can lead to faulty conclusions and can really hurt people.

I fear that instead of learning that lesson, we will point fingers at each other and CNN will say that FOX is to blame…the NAACP will say that we were "snookered."

Is this moment a cause for reevaluation of “gotcha journalism” in the age of new media?

I sure wish that were the case, but old habits die hard. I don’t like to be a cynic but I think it a little naive of us to believe that this one moment is going to change how people…are going to change their habits.

I think that for whatever reason, people will look for the fall guy… to blame someone else and it’s just the nature of the beast. I don’t’ see any evidence at all that we’re going to learn from the moment and change behavior.

I think right now racial sensitivities sensibilities are so intense - so inflamed. We’re in the middle of a midterm election and race is being exploited. Race and ethnicity are being exploited. For all these reasons, I doubt very seriously whether this incident will provoke fundamental change.

Bear in mind when it comes to race there are two audiences: the ruling class and everyone else. Ordinary Americans are operating their lives worrying about jobs and paying their mortgages. It’s the ruling class, the elite, that are throwing charges at each other about the tea party being racist and the NAACP being hypocrite - Democrats being one thing and Republicans being closet racists.

The average citizen is really not paying attention to this.

Has this incident spent too long in the media spotlight?

To the contrary, I think it needed to go on a little bit longer, but in the right direction. The right direction would be for the president to intervene and say, "Hey look, I know some of you are skeptical about things, and my administration has made a serious mistake. Let’s really try to deal with this issue of race, and I urge all of you to ponder these questions. How do we stop this insane preoccupation we have with race? How do we stop it?"
I don’t think that’s going to happen.

Was the administration too quick to respond to the Sherrod situation by firing her within 24 hours of becoming aware of the video, and without having ever looked at the full tape?

There is something about the administration that seems to be hasty, quick to judge. They’re not doing the proper vetting…

It could very well be that this is an inherent flaw that can only be changed by a change in personnel at some very high levels.

It’s one thing to have problems that you did not make; it’s something else to make your own trouble. And that is something that we’re seeing over and over again with this administration.

One of the most serious issues in the Shirley Sherrod matter is being almost completely missed: the shocking applause and approval of the NAACP audience when Ms. Sherrod was relating how she treated whites worse than her fellow black Americans early in her career. When combined with the many outrageous remarks made by some leaders of the NAACP like Julian Bond in recent years, that approval makes one doubt that this organization that was founded to stop racism still believes in its original purpose.

I also will not join the chorus of those who believe that Ms. Sherrod should be lauded as a role model. It is true that the original video clip did not contain her full remarks and was taken out of context, but frankly, her full remarks raise other significant concerns. She has a paranoid view of history, claiming that “the folks with money want to stay in power and whether it’s health care or whatever it is, they’ll do what they need to do to keep that power.” This is the kind of class warfare, nutty grand conspiracy view that one finds all too often on the internet. Sherrod may have overcome her obsessive hatred for whites, but she has transferred that obsession to the successful.

More importantly, Sherrod’s racial views are also still warped: she essentially claims that the opposition to the president’s health care proposal was due to “the racism we thought was buried” and that what “Republicans are doing [is] because you have a black president.” Her view that political opposition to the policies of this president is the result of racism is not only wrong, but an insult to millions of Americans who don’t want the government controlling every aspect of their lives. Given the power of federal bureaucrats these days, I’d feel better if she found other employment.

No, it won't change a thing for conservatives, tea partiers, and Republicans because liberals will continue to "shoot first, ask questions later" when it comes race. Republicans and conservatives who make even the slightest politically incorrect comments, or take policy stances that are contrary to the left-leaning ethnic interest groups (i.e. opposing immigration reform or supporting racial profiling at airports) should expect to be immediately "Sherroded" in pieces and branded "racists" or "anti-(fill in the ethnicity) by the Democrats and the liberal media.

I'd like to think this embarrassing episode would inaugurate some much needed change, but realistically I fear it will be business as usual in the corridors of power. The capitol has always been more "Spin City" than "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington."

Gibbs is right. We should learn, and I hope we have. Far too many innocents have had their lives ruined by the combination of unjustified, unsubstantiated attacks coupled with the cowardly behavior of authorities who "threw the victims under the bus" instead of facing down their attackers.

As an Arab-American, I know too well the pain of this scourge, and the consequences many in my community have faced as result of this sordid game. An entire cottage industry of professional Arab and Muslim baiters has been developed to plague my community. We saw evidence of their work in Arena earlier this week as Rep. Peter King echoed the charges of one of these baiters when King called for the investigation of the imam who is leading the effort to build a mosque near the site of the World Trade Center.

The imam in question is a remarkable fellow and a true disciple of peace and interfaith reconciliation. This, however, doesn't matter to those who seek to advance their political agendas. All that concerns these baiters and bashers is whether they can find that shred of innuendo, that out-of-context phrase, or that hint of a "Kevin Bacon - style 'degree of separation,'" and out of all these bits and scraps make a case to defame and score a momentary point.

This should be a time when we step back and learn, but I fear we will not. Too many people have become invested in this filthy business and are convinced of the righteousness of their ways to expect that they will stop because they saw the damage their work has done. To them, Shirley Sherrod or New York's Imam Faisal Abdul Raouf are mere collateral damage - a price they are willing to pay.

Why, exactly, did this relatively obscure speech surface in the first place? Only because there is a cadre of people combing the Internet to uncover -- or create -- something that could damage the administration. This is one of the saddest aspects of the story. Even as we are busy mulling over this one; they've no doubt moved on, giddily seeking the next.

There is a First Amendment for a reason. Not only do we protect man's (and women's) God-given right to say stupid things, we also have the First Amendment to allows others to decide for themselves what is stupid and what is not - and tell the rest of us what they think.

That is clearly what happened here. The Internet just allows us to do it faster.

Get over it.

People are not going to stop doing and reacting to stupid things online.

In the marketplace of ideas, like in real markets, the old adage of "let the buyer beware" still holds. It also holds for the peddlers of information as well. While perfidy can be spread at Internet speed, so can truth.

In the war of ideas, the Internet makes the battleground the place for a fair fight.

Gibbs is clueless if he thinks this incident is going to put a damper on citizen journalism. In fact, I think the notoriety the video has garnered is going to inspire more wannabe newsmakers.

Likely, as not there will be more mishaps online but for every 10 stupid posts, there will be videos like the death of Neda that will shake the world.

As a one-time journalist (newspaper and magazine reporter before being elected to Congress), I have been concerned for some time about the media's sometimes inability to ask the right questions before running with a story. I hope this teaches everyone - left and right - a few lessons. It is not the end of the world for a media outlet to be second or third with a story in order to take enough time to make sure they have the full picture about what happened. You don't always have to be the first on the air or in print. Maybe the major cable news outlets should fill some of their air time with sports rather than filling their air time with incomplete "news" items. They shouldn't cede sports coverage to ESPN.

The cheap shot will always exist on both sides of the political spectrum. You would hope that this episode is a teachable moment, but in reality there are just too many loose cannons out there that want their 15 minutes of fame who cannot be controlled.

There is too much "first with the news" journalism to allow all the proper vetting. For the day, the week, and maybe the month we will all be careful. Then it's back to gotcha politics and gotcha journalism.

There is no “tipping point” in gotcha journalism. It is what it is. However, the entire episode has taken everyone “off message” for 48 hours. The Republicans have let the issue turn their attention away from the oil spill, jobs and the economy and the Democrats have not been able to get any traction from the passage of financial regulatory reform. And voters? They largely could care less and see this as more of Washington focusing on the wrong things.

The only folks who really need "teaching" here are the media beyond the FOX propaganda network. Treating this as a football is what the media have done and continue to do. When will POLITICO, the TV and print media learn NOT to take tips from Breitbart, Drudge, etc as news? Until that happens, those provocateurs and their lying ways are rewarded and will keep right on creating vicious false controversies like this.

POLITICO should write an honest article about the far-right lying machine and how it works. Stop the pretend equivalences between left and right.

And stop the articles about "race" controversies. This was never a race controversy. It was a right-wing-smear that, for once, fell short - though not entirely, because Breitbart continues to be interviewed and his charges continue to be "debated."

More and more Americans are checking out of mainstream media outlets altogether, because they know it is a bunch of trumped up non-truth. Not just the original false content, but the continued play of it, is guilty here.

Financial reform legislation has been signed by President Obama, who must now pick a leader of the new consumer protection bureau. The front-runner has long been Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard law professor and chairwoman of the TARP congressional oversight panel. Warren has long been a thorn in the side of the big banks and financial institutions, which are pushing back against her potential new role.

Does the opposition to Warren suggest she would bring about real change to the financial sector? Or are the financial institutions raising legitimate questions about an agenda they portray as anti-business and likely to hinder future economic growth? And would a Warren pick help President Obama help shore up his liberal base, which remains frustrated over gloomy prospects for passage of climate change legislation and other issues?

This week I signed a letter to President Obama asking him to select Harvard professor Elizabeth Warren as the head of the new Consumer Federal Protection Bureau. We know that many people are already saying that this new agency is not strong enough. It’s an important part of the financial reform bill, and barely 24 hours old, and will go a long way to curbing the recklessness on Wall Street.

The mission of this bureau is to protect consumers and Warren has outstanding credentials to take on this task. She will be vigorous in her oversight of banks while keeping a focus on protecting home owners and everyday Americans, many of whom suffered during the economic crisis on Wall Street. She’s a perfect consumer guardian and I hope President Obama selects her for this important job.

At a time when doubts about Wall Street and its practices are very deep, at a time when many Americans believe that we have not acted as aggressively and rapidly as we might have in limiting Wall Street recklessness and greed, American consumers need a federal government that is looking after their best interests.

A good first step has been the creation of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection as part of the Wall Street reform legislation. But establishing the agency is not enough. We need a strong director who will help convince the many millions of Americans who currently do not trust government that we are serious in standing up to Wall Street and providing the consumer protection they need. This will not be a job for the faint-hearted.

I strongly recommend Elizabeth Warren to become the first director.

She was the first to broach the idea of such a commission in an article published in Democracy: A Journal of Ideas in 2007. She has a strong reputation for looking out for the American people and for American taxpayers. Incredibly, in just the last few weeks, tens of thousands of Americans have signed online petitions requesting her appointment – a very unusual occurrence for a somewhat obscure job. The widespread support shows that Professor Warren has a proven track record as a smart and tough consumer advocate. For her work as head of the Troubled Asset Relief Program Oversight Committee, Professor Warren is seen as a champion of open, honest and responsive government. No one in our nation could do a better job as the first director of the financial consumer protection bureau.

I have no doubt that some in the Senate will oppose her confirmation. Good! It will allow for a serious debate as to the role that government should play in protecting the American people against the outrageous behavior we have seen on Wall Street. In my view, those of us supporting Professor Warren, along with massive public support, will win that debate and the confirmation.

The choice of who heads up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as it rolls out of the gate is extremely consequential. Given the proliferation of complex, unfair, and predatory financial products, trust and integrity have been driven from the marketplace. There is much work to be done and we need a strong leader who can help usher them back in.

Elizabeth Warren has a lot going for her. She raised her voice in opposition when she saw families increasingly steered into inappropriate loans or unhealthy financial arrangements. She was an early proponent of creating an agency with the sole purpose of looking out for the interests of consumer as they participate in the financial marketplace. And as the policy debates unfolded, she provided informative public tutorials on the history of our banking system. Go ahead and Google her appearances on The Daily Show (or various congressional testimonies, if this is more your cup of tea) to hear her explain in plain language how this banking system skidded off the tracks. Most importantly, she has argued that the key to meaningful reform is ensuring that consumers are matched with appropriate savings and credit products in a fair and transparent manner. These connections have broken down and need to be rebuilt. I think she would be an effective leader because she understands what’s at stake and the task at hand.

That said, there should be others that could do this job. Leadership qualities can be difficult to ascertain before conflicts emerge. Some leaders rise unexpectedly from the trenches. They use their knowledge, gained over time, of policy matters and the political process to exert authority. The key is that this new Bureau becomes a strong regulator, one that is truly independent, autonomous, and impactful.

We know from past experience that effective oversight requires a blend of empowerment, competence, and vigilance. Oversight agencies have to resist the formation of cozy relationships with industry. And this is where leadership comes in. Historically, avoiding the dangerous phenomenon of regulatory capture is achieved through strong political will. There is an interesting contrast observable right now between the high-stakes politicking which surrounds Supreme Court nominations and the typically below-the-radar process of confirming financial regulators. Regardless of who is nominated for this position, there are some benefits of a high-profile confirmation process. We have seen that Elizabeth Warren is able to exert her will and speak truth to power. Whoever gets the administration’s nod, they should be expected to outline their strategy for standing up for families as they navigate the financial services marketplace.

Elizabeth Warren should face far more scrutiny than Elena Kagan did. The biggest concern is whether she can convert from being an aggressive consumer advocate to being what a new regulator really needs to be: fair. Once you are armed with the power of the state, you cannot be an advocate. The big question is whether Warren can possibly be anything else. There is considerable doubt in the industry as to whether she has sufficient banking experience and an understanding of a large segment of the industry she will be asked to regulate, namely community banks. She has never even worked in a bank before.

The big concern is that Warren, sitting amid her inexperience and atop a white horse, would try to cram down the same snowstorm regulatory approach that might be needed for big megabanks onto much smaller community lenders, most with capitalizations well south of $500 million, relatively thin operating margins and only a modest amount of staff.

As George Beattie, head of the Nebraska Bankers Association, said, "We just don't think she understands how community banks work." Roger Beverage, head of the Oklahoma Banker Association, says she "has a different view of the world than what reality shows for community banks," and "in some cases, the people they're trying to help are going to get screwed." Indeed. With possible consequences like that, let's take our time with Elizabeth Warren to see whether she really knows how to be a judge instead of a prosecutor, and is sensitive to the particulars of each of the sub-markets she hopes to oversee.

David OrentlicherProfessor, co-dir., Center for Law and Health, Ind. University Schools of Law and Medicine :

Elizabeth Warren would be an excellent appointment. It’s better to err on the side of over-regulation than under-regulation. As the economic downturn of the past few years and the BP oil spill illustrate, the harm from under-regulation is far worse and much more difficult to correct than the harm from over-regulation. In addition, the interest groups that police over-regulation (the regulated industries in particular) are in a far better position to push for legislative reform than the interest groups that police under-regulation (e.g., consumer advocacy groups).

Resounding yes - we need Elizabeth Warren to bring integrity and passion to America's new consumer protection agency. The fact that Wall Street reform opponents and repealers object to Warren is yet another reason why we need this new sheriff in town.

Elizabeth Warren would be a perfect fit for the economic fantasyland that is the Obama administration. Her career as a Harvard law professor, where she has been insulated from even the most minor real world business decisions, combined with her strong skepticism toward free market economics makes her the ideal candidate for an administration that creates economic policy based on worn academic theory.

Whoever becomes leader of this new consumer financial protection agency will be charged with arbitrarily deciding what financial instruments are fair, and the agency will have the authority to subjectively create thousands of new regulations without debate or oversight. This agency, and the entire financial regulatory reform bill, are a manifestation of the left's arrogant belief that wise mandarins should control the foolish masses. And certainly, from the perspective of the left, and President Obama, a lifelong law professor who rails against market economics, would be a wise mandarin.

Elizabeth Warren would be a farcical choice for a farcical agency created by a farcical bill -- but she'll fit right in.

Elizabeth Warren would make good choice. She's a valuable pro-consumer advocate in the federal government. Her independence from Treasury is well-noted. As for banks feeling the Obama administration is anti-business, that's hoary nonsense. Bank profits have been soaring during the Obama administration -- and banks are rehiring at a rate faster than any industry. If this is an anti- business administration, what was the last administration, during which time the banks suffered huge failures, losses, and collapse? Surely that was the anti-business climate. Not this one.

It would be difficult to see why President Obama would not pick Elizabeth Warren to head the new consumer financial products protection agency. This agency was her idea. She is hard-working and committed and has the independence that is necessary to establish the agency as an effective force to police a politically powerful industry.

Warren's extraordinary reputation will attract top-flight people who will relish the opportunity to work with her. These people will get the new agency established on a solid footing with a culture that centers on enforcement rather than accommodation. We have far too many oversight agencies that are in bed with the industry -- just look at the Mineral Management Services -- Washington does not need another one.

As far as Wall Street's argument that a strong agency will impede growth -- this is like Lindsey Lohan giving lectures on child-rearing and good conduct.

This industry has done more to undermine growth with their greed and incompetence than any of our enemies could ever hope to accomplish with their most successful attacks. The economy will lose at least $4 trillion in output from the current economic downturn, which was brought on by the Wall Street boys running wild.

It would be a huge gain to the economy if we had a financial industry that focused on providing better services to the productive economy -- consumers and businesses -- rather than designing complex financial instruments to rip them off. President Obama would be making a huge political and policy mistake if he listened to the Wall Street whiners and didn't pick Elizabeth Warren.

The opposition of the big banks to the possible appointment of Elizabeth Warren as the new consumer protection bureau is the strongest possible proof that she might actually bring real change to the financial sector. The anti-business rap against the Obama administration being promoted by the Chamber of Commerce and other Republican paladins is pure partisan bogus nonsense. If anything, the Obama team is more pro-business than the previous Bush administration. There has been nothing in the Obama administration to equal the hit on business that resulted from the Bush administration’s abandonment of Lehman Brothers that really triggered the Great Recession. Nor did the Bush administration invest the kind of money the Obama administration is now investing in new technologies and new high tech start-ups.

The appointment of Warren is a sign that the Obama administration is serious about financial reform and should be seen as a very positive sign by the administration’s liberal base. This could actually be change that I can believe in.

The new Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection is a massive managerial undertaking with a $500 million budget and hundreds of employees from disparate agencies of the government. The head of the new bureau should be someone who, in addition to sound policy instincts, has a proven record of managerial accomplishment. A polarizing choice will dim the chances of the bureau carrying out its mission effectively and in the long run be of little help to President Obama’s political prospects. A polarizing choice may well bring “real change” to the financial system but it may not be the change we want or need.

Does it even matter? According to Senator Dodd,(the lame duck who crafted the bill and whose shared incompetence created the need for one), said in effect, we will not know if what we have done will be effective until the next crisis occurs. The fact that financial reforms do not include Fannie or Freddie is more dangerous for the taxpayer/consumer and there is nothing a newly created government consumer "watchdog" can say or do about it.

I am not sure how many members of Obama's liberal base ever heard of Harvard Law Professor Elizabeth Warren. Many in and out of that "base" may rightly ask after the Kagan and other nominations whether Obama's vision extends beyond the banks of the Charles River.

Obama's real problem - as I discern from the tone of this and other Arena-put questions - may be his pre-occupation with how his shrinking base reacts to decisions he makes. (Disclaimer: Having had some of the most rewarding experiences of my life - professional and otherwise - as a fellow at Harvard's Institute of Politics, I well understand why presidents and Congresses look in that direction for personnel.)

Her zip code aside, Warren is the natural choice to head the regulatory body she proposed. Readers curious to know what we might expect to see in her early months in office are advised to Google "Joseph P. Kennedy/Securities Exchange Commission."

This time, however, do not expect the president to say of his nominee, as had FDR, "takes a thief to catch a thief."

Thom Rogers (guest)
NJ:

America isn't post racial ... It's pre-Civil War. Overt racism in America has been simmering for the most part for the last twenty years or so confined to regional outbreaks (the South). But the election of the first black man as president of the United States has put it back on the front burner and brought it to a boil.

Aided and abetted by the likes of Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, all of Fox News, the right-wing blogosphere as personified in the likes of Andrew Breitbart, the deranged racist elements in America have been emboldened and encouraged by their overt racist cant and rant. If it isn't smothered soon, I fear the next step will be mini-race wars all across the country. God knows there are plenty of guns in the hands of plenty of crazies.

Robert Harlow (guest)
IL:

Elizabeth Warren, I would not say liberal, she was asked to find out where the TARP money went and doing that ruffled consevative feathers. I feel if she was appointed to protect consumers she would do just that, protect consumers and ruffle conservative feathers by doing so.

Laura Halvorsen (guest)
FL:

What difference does it make who President Obama appoints? Okay, so Elizabeth Warren is anti-business. So what? Would appointing someone who is pro-business do anything to change the inherently anti-business nature of the program? No.

Will it help shore up Obama's base? No. If his anti-business agenda hasn't shored up his liberal base, then appointing some obscure Harvard denizen as an overseer isn't going to help. What it will do is lend further credence to the pervasive notion that Obama is an anti-business president and, thus, is making the economic and jobless problem worse, as are the Democrats' reforms. In a related note, Gallup came out with a poll today ranking Americans' confidence in a variety of large institutions. It's worth noting that "big business," "small business" and "banks" all ranked higher in confidence than Congress - who ranked dead last. The writing is on the wall. Whitewash and Harvard ivy won't help.

Mike roberts (guest)
OH:

I am concerned about Theda Skocpol's remarks, as other responders in the Arena focus on the problem created by the left and right. Her comments only focus on the right, when we all know the race baiting is primarily a leftist strategy. Both the left and right are to blame.

Todd Bray (guest)
CA:

I agree with Dean Baker that the Street has caused far more damage to our nation than any foreign attack ever has. Over the last eight to 10 years, Wall Street has shown it is investing in Wall Street bonuses, not companies or municipalities.

If that is the future of the financial industry fine, but it must be regulated to protect us from the kinds if insider trading ... and credit fault swap gambling ... of Wall Street against its clients that is now the Wall Street norm.

Brad Bonar (guest)
PA:

Another teachable moment for this administration? Who is doing the teaching, and who is being taught?
A series of unfortunate Teachable Moments happens when the chief executive is clueless.

william stubblefield (guest)
PA:

This entire Sherrod fiasco illustrates the lack of character and courage in both the media and politics. On one side you have Andrew Breitbart, a right-wing conservative so lacking in character that he will do and say anything to bring down the Obama administration.

Did this man take into account that he could possibly destroy this woman's life? No! Did he entertain the possibilty that the video could include inaccuracies? No! This unabashed slave to his ideology has shown that he will cut any corner and destroy any life or reputation for money, fame and power. As for the Obama administration, it lacks the courage to stand up to these idiots. Did anyone in the White House ever think that, since Breitbart had previously tried to bring down ACORN with the same tactics, to check on the accuracy of the video.? No! Instead they panicked and overreacted, forcing Ms. Sherrod to resign from her position with a tainted reputation. Thank God this lady and the farmer she helped stepped up and exhibited the courage that the so-called elites failed to show. God bless us common folk.

Stefan Saal (guest)
NH:

The rich need more money. The poor have already proved they can do without it. So vote "No" on Elizabeth Warren.

Dean Williams (guest)
FL:

Although Ms. Sherrod's overall message reflected her evolution on the issue of race, she couldn't resist the meaningful words (..."took him to one of his own"), smiles, and expressions to let her NAACP audience agree with what she said, before stating it wasn't/was about race. Could a white man get away with the same speech?

Ruby Keene (guest)
UT:

The question is: What does this say about the state of the media today?

Melanie Russell (guest)
CA:

In response to Profesor Skocpol's hyper-partisan post: Media Matters and JournoList. Professor, I'm sure you're familiar with the saying "Those who live in glass houses ..."

lynn reed (guest)
OR:

With regarding to Elizabeth Warren heading up the Consumer Protection Agency, this question as to whether or not she should be in charge, was posed in the first segment of C-span's Washington Journal on Tuesday. She had overwhelming support from Democrats, independents, and Republicans.

As a long-time viewer of Washington Journal, I don't remember a topic that received such bipartisan consensus. Several Republicans who called in were surprised, in fact, that there was so much agreement. She was viewed not only as imminently qualified, but a true advocate for the people.

Clarke Fulkerson (guest)
NY:

I'm amazed that James Carafano thinks the malicious premeditated mixture of willful character assassination and slander that Ms. Sherrod unjustly received simply goes hand in hand with the First Amendment marketplace of ideas.

What "idea" exactly is editing a video for the sole purpose of defamation? I'd guess, however, that he probably thinks Sarah Palin is treated unfairly when her unedited commentary of every type shows her to be rather vacuous and uninformed.

Donald Johnson Blogger, www.businessword.com (guest)
CO:

Humans always have dealt with new information and updates, first reactions and reconsiderations. And liberal fascists and totalitarians have always taken every opportunity to discredit and shut up their political enemies.

Online reporters go with the news and update it fast as possible. Totalitarians on JournoList and here are trying to quiet Fox, Rush and everybody who's showing what fools the lefties are.

Michael Evans (guest)
MA:

Sherrod/Obama administration teachable moment: The Obama administration continues to display a complete lack of basic management and leadership skills, 18 months into the revolution of hope and change.

Management 101 for this "incident" would have been for the administration to publicly state they were looking into this incident and resisting the temptation to rush to judgment (like they should have learned from the Cambridge fiasco). Once all the facts became known they would have had the option of taking some action, if they felt it was necessary. They easily could have responded thoughtfully about the issue of the context of Sherrod's remarks. Instead they rush ahead, make a rash decision to fire her and now look incompetent. Again. Really amazing that they cannot do a better job with handling even the smallest "crises." On the big crises they do nothing for weeks when action is called for-see BP. Of course, this is the brutal learning curve of someone learning what it means to actual govern, or lead a large organization. Obama may be a great campaigner but he really is a terrible executive. How did this guy get elected?

Allen Adegbenro (guest)
TX:

Ever since I've been in this country, it has been my observation that the racists in this country are always looking to counterattack black organizations as racists as if to say, "See, they are racists too!"

The NAACP did not accuse the entire tea party movement of racism, only imploring them to root out racists elements in their mist. To which the tea party, as if on cue, says, "NAACP, you're racist too!" Unless you're blind or just being disingenouous, there is no question in my mind, after watching all the tea party gatherings over the last 18 months, that most of the tea partiers are racists. Where were these racists when President Bush was spending us into oblivion? It is sad to see this great country degenerate into this level of racism and counter - racism accusations over the last few years. It reminds me of the Greek and Roman empires, they destroyed themselves from within first before outsiders came to finish them off.

This country is headed in that same direction.

Jan Yeap (guest)
DC:

Indeed, poor Shirley Sherrod. It's the dirtiest trick the tea party activist, Andrew Breitbart, could play on a human being, to spark off ugly, rude and hate messages against her, online, in every media blog.

And Fox News made matter worst with their deluded talk hosts, repeatedly showing the edited short video, and making sarcasm and distortion with intention to defame Sherrod. To imagine any American would even bother with the tea party whose members are nothing more than childish nincompoops and nuts, living in fantasies and hooliganism, and whose only purpose is to distract the American public from the real and important issues facing this country.

America and Americans are faced an economic crisis; corporations that have outsourced jobs, do not have available jobs in America. And yet the tea party and the media sees more interest in distracting America and Americans from America's real issues to take us on a merry-go-round. What has happened to professionalism in reporting news? Perhaps, Sherrod should sue Andrew Breitbart, and the owner of the website, for their intended defamation of her character.,

Lee (MMBJack) McCarty (guest)
NV:

When Sanders, Pelosi, Biespiel, and Baker line up in a row in full support of Elizabeth Warren for heading the new Consumer Protection Agency and from my perspective of the simple truth or falsity of issues I comment on here in the Arena, it is a case of the one best and perhaps the only right choice.

And this will be a litmus test of the resolve of the Obama administration to really do the right thing to back up their modest but real beginning of regulating the banking and Wall Street industry long overdue. She should be a shoo-in for the job; it is so obvious and clear is the right person.

Equally clear amid the muddy rain of diverse views are the exposed forces of Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes Fox News (Fox Views) and their paid scum and genius liars who they support in their all-out effort to destroy, not simply defeat, everything President Obama has attempted in his first 18 months. This travesty of Breitbart on top of the master of the Big Lie Frank Luntz is evil in the true meaning of this word. An attempt to overthrow our government and bring down our economy in the process of moving our nation towards a totalitarian military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned of - but going way beyond it to where Orwell lives.

Mike Henson (guest)
GA:

I understand the anger directed at the WH for overreacting to the Shirley Sherrod fiasco. It's anger they deserve for not back checking the facts. What I don't understand is the lack of anger that should be equally directed at Breitbart and Fox News for their lack of fact checking.

Jeff Sutter (guest)
MD:

Calling Elizabeth Warren anti-business defames businesses - the tactics that she opposes are not even sporting, much less appropriate commercial behavior.

Her characterization of the predatory practices used by unscrupulous financial service institutions as "Trick & Trap" captures the ethos perfectly. The thing is that being able to lure people into places they don't want to be doesn't mean they secretly wanted to go there - it means they are being misled. How does being pro-business make that OK?

Caveat emptor is good advice for consumers dealing with honest brokers - not an excuse for taking advantage of people whose ability to identify a dead-end relationship can be clouded by hype, jargon, and fine print. The purpose of underwriting is to identify high-risk loans so they can be avoided. Using the information to identify vulnerable people and organizing schemes to bilk them out of what little they have is not honest business and opposing that is not anti-business. Neither is Elizabeth Warren - who would be a fine choice for consumer chief.

Tom Genin (guest)
CT:

Somewhat disturbing that Theda Skocpol, a professor of government and sociology at Harvard, doesn't see the teachable moment from the Sherrod video and firing. Moreover, her comment, "This was never a race controversy" begs the question of whether she even watched the video.

Or, at least without liberal colored glasses. Did Ms. Skocpol note the applause given by the NAACP crowd every time Ms. Sherrod made an anti-white comment? Absolutely a given that Sherrod's statements were made to tell the story of her epiphany reagarding class identity instead of race identity, but the crowd didn't know the moral of the story until the end. If Ms. Skocpol doesn't see a "teachable moment" in a race-based organization's unceasing applause at denying a white citizen government aid, what exactly is she teaching?

John Kettlewell (guest)
FL:

Teachable moment? Going by this Arena thread, I would have to say obviously not. Blanket statements reign supreme. I'm stunned that a Harvard professor would be so blunt on the open stage and with such disdain that the whole statement is nothing but pejoratives.

I'd say it could fall under "hate speech." Another professor above her is more subtle and subdued but dislikes the right wing as well. Zogby, I had no idea he was such a victim, hence another rant. This time it's being two things, Arab and Muslim. Again no substance, only one sentence to endorse the imam, yet the rest of it is to imply Muslim-hater if people question him.

People need to bring substance. People need to take responsibility for being fooled and doing the fooling. Fox leans right; any of you going to mention and complain of MSNBC leaning left? Sherrod got screwed, so she's not a racist now. See what she after to the "moderate" LOL MediaMatters? Extreme's will always fight more fierce than is required. Yin and Yang...balance in everything.

Kevin McCann (guest)
GA:

Theda Skocpol, who is throwing a tantrum and jumping to conclusions here? Fox News didn't even talk about this story until O'Reilly, which was already after she was forced to resign by the White House.

What you are doing is just as bad as what Breitbart did: selling a narrative that is false to get a reaction out of your fan base -- the far-left lunatics.

Jazziette Devereaux (guest)
AZ:

I feel sorry for Obama! I believe that what happened could have been avoided if Ms. Sherrod had simply had the good judgement to stay away from the sensitive topic of 'racism' in the first place. After all, shouldn't we be putting this behind us?

Shouldn't we be moving forward and allowing racism to heal in this country rather than continuously bringing up tales from the past about how we are a recovering racist, etc.? What if she had been a white person explaining the very same scenario? All hell would have broken loose regardless of the 'full context' or reason for her revelations. I mean, why even discuss it to begin with? Why not just let 'sleeping dogs lie'? Isn't there some personal responsibility that one has when they have an important job in the administration as Sherrod did? I can well understand in today's political 'climate' how and why Vilsack reacted the way he did. His rush to judgment was to protect this administration in every way from any hint of racism. In my humble opinion I think that this should be a lesson for all that some things are just better left unsaid. No matter how noble her intentions sometimes it's just better to stay silent. Amazing Grace is better off sung in church.

Ed Davis (guest)
NY:

It should be obvious that Breitbart intentionally edited the tape to set a trap for the liberal politicians and media - and they fell into it, hook line, and sinker.

More POLITICO Arena

About the Arena

The Arena is a cross-party, cross-discipline forum for intelligent and lively conversation about political and policy issues. Contributors have been selected by POLITICO staff and editors. David Mark, Arena's moderator, is a Senior Editor at POLITICO. Each morning, POLITICO sends a question based on that day's news to all contributors.